John Lewis’ Mirror Trial The Latest In A Long Line Of Frustrated Efforts

Written by Evan Schuman
May 2nd, 2012

For a half-dozen years, retailers have been struggling to find a way to make mirrors work as an in-store-to-Web sales device. Bloomingdale’s was one of the first. Its idea was to let a shopper model prospective new outfits to the mirror, which would then transit the images live to the Web and allow comments from total strangers or a smaller group of logged in friends. Seems that it missed the fun social elements of physically shopping together.

Last year, the New York Times lab tried leveraging technology onto—I couldn’t make this up—the mirror in a shopper’s bathroom. Yes, it would beam images back and forth, superimposing ads—where it could—related to what the consumer was doing and helping to choose clothing. This week, it was British department store chain John Lewis’ turn.

The Lewis mirrors, being trialed at its flagship London store, use cameras to capture a shopper in the mirror. But the image that is displayed in the mirror is not that shopper wearing whatever she is wearing. Instead it shows that shopper wearing whatever outfit she has selected. In theory, she could “try on” a dozen outfits within two minutes.

Like other mirror and related efforts, this setup (which had help from Cisco) enables images of the outfits and the shopper to be E-mailed to the shopper, and then shared with others. That’s the sort of afterthought social media component.

The problem with John Lewis’ mirror concept is that it doesn’t truly address shopper concerns. Trying on an outfit—even in one of Macy’s peek-a-boo changing rooms—is all about feeling the fabric, getting an exact sense of how it fits on you specifically (where does it feel tight or too loose?).

Even those body-measuring kiosks in malls that claim to take hundreds of thousands of measurements in a couple of moments ultimately deliver a garment that the customer must try on in a dressing room.

By the way, magic mirror variations never seem to go anywhere, but technology that sits in the dressing room? That seems to have a much better success rate. Why? Instead of trying to create a new experience that doesn’t address the complaints about the old experience, it simply makes the existing method better.

What are the complaints about dressing rooms? Lack of privacy, having to lug too many outfits into too small a room, the challenge of getting an associate to unlock the doors and lack of comfort in general.

Nordstrom wants customer-owned mobile devices in the dressing room to be a key part of its growth, while Guess has a similar idea but wants it done by Guess-owned iPads. In Japan’s Mitsukoshi chain, it was RFID and VoIP way back in 2006. Today, some of Japan’s dressing rooms are toying with RFID hangers that properly manage inventory no matter what the customer hangs on them.

But a mirror that does a Photoshop superimposing of an idealized outfit on a shopper’s video? Attention-generating novelty? Slightly. Something that will address customer needs and, therefore, have lasting power? You’re better off asking, “Mirror mirror, at the mall, who has the fairest mirror gimmick of them all?”


Comments are closed.


StorefrontBacktalk delivers the latest retail technology news & analysis. Join more than 60,000 retail IT leaders who subscribe to our free weekly email. Sign up today!

Most Recent Comments

Why Did Gonzales Hackers Like European Cards So Much Better?

I am still unclear about the core point here-- why higher value of European cards. Supply and demand, yes, makes sense. But the fact that the cards were chip and pin (EMV) should make them less valuable because that demonstrably reduces the ability to use them fraudulently. Did the author mean that the chip and pin cards could be used in a country where EMV is not implemented--the US--and this mis-match make it easier to us them since the issuing banks may not have as robust anti-fraud controls as non-EMV banks because they assumed EMV would do the fraud prevention for them Read more...
Two possible reasons that I can think of and have seen in the past - 1) Cards issued by European banks when used online cross border don't usually support AVS checks. So, when a European card is used with a billing address that's in the US, an ecom merchant wouldn't necessarily know that the shipping zip code doesn't match the billing code. 2) Also, in offline chip countries the card determines whether or not a transaction is approved, not the issuer. In my experience, European issuers haven't developed the same checks on authorization requests as US issuers. So, these cards might be more valuable because they are more likely to get approved. Read more...
A smart card slot in terminals doesn't mean there is a reader or that the reader is activated. Then, activated reader or not, the U.S. processors don't have apps certified or ready to load into those terminals to accept and process smart card transactions just yet. Don't get your card(t) before the terminal (horse). Read more...
The marketplace does speak. More fraud capacity translates to higher value for the stolen data. Because nearly 100% of all US transactions are authorized online in real time, we have less fraud regardless of whether the card is Magstripe only or chip and PIn. Hence, $10 prices for US cards vs $25 for the European counterparts. Read more...
@David True. The European cards have both an EMV chip AND a mag stripe. Europeans may generally use the chip for their transactions, but the insecure stripe remains vulnerable to skimming, whether it be from a false front on an ATM or a dishonest waiter with a handheld skimmer. If their stripe is skimmed, the track data can still be cloned and used fraudulently in the United States. If European banks only detect fraud from 9-5 GMT, that might explain why American criminals prefer them over American bank issued cards, who have fraud detection in place 24x7. Read more...

Our apologies. Due to legal and security copyright issues, we can't facilitate the printing of Premium Content. If you absolutely need a hard copy, please contact customer service.